1. A deed drawn up by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2009, No. 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2009, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant as money for gambling by intentionally introducing a person with no name or gambling with a person with no name or gambling, and the Defendant requesting the preparation of a notarial deed for the purpose of collecting the money. The same month to the Defendant requesting the preparation of the notarial deed.

3. "209".

9.1. To borrow 40,000,000 won from the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate of 30% per annum and due date of September 10, 2009.

‘No. 1262, No. 2009, No. 2009, No. 2009, No. 1262, No. 2000, No. 2000

B) The Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed, received a seizure and collection order (the Jeonju District Court 2014Tz. 2589) to the effect that the Plaintiff’s deposit, etc. is seized and collected in relation to the Plaintiff’s financial institution. 【The facts without any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s entries, and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. We examine the judgment, the money and valuables that the plaintiff borrowed from the defendant for gambling as illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act is null and void as an act contrary to the public order and good morals, and even if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, prepared and executed the notarial deed in this case to the defendant, who is the creditor, for the purpose of collection, the creditor cannot perform compulsory execution based on this. Thus, it is reasonable to deny the defendant's compulsory execution based on the notarial deed in this case against the plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.